The Value of Landmine Awareness Programs in Conflict Settings: Evidence from Myanmar

Last registered on November 28, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Value of Landmine Awareness Programs in Conflict Settings: Evidence from Myanmar
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017047
Initial registration date
October 22, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 23, 2025, 7:42 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
November 28, 2025, 1:28 PM EST

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Rochester

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
The World Bank
PI Affiliation
The World Bank

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-06-01
End date
2028-03-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Landmines pose a significant threat not only to physical safety but also to the socioeconomic well-being of communities in conflict-affected regions. Living near landmines may restrict agricultural activity, impede mobility, and diminish access to essential services such as schools and markets. This evaluation uses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the value of improving information about nearby landmine contamination in landmine-affected villages in Myanmar through the Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) program. Landmine awareness programs are intuitively appealing interventions with a clear first-stage effect: they help people recognize and avoid landmines, reducing injury and death. While logical and widely accepted, this impact has not been rigorously documented, leaving uncertainty about its magnitude and reliability across contexts. Beyond safety, the livelihood impacts of these programs are less well understood. Better information about mine risks may allow communities to access agricultural land, forests, or other resources critical for income and food security. Awareness might also alleviate the psychological stress of living in mine-affected areas, indirectly improving productivity and decision-making. However, awareness alone may not translate into livelihood gains if structural barriers such as limited economic opportunities or inadequate demining services persist.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Baseler, Travis, Sutirtha Sinha Roy and Roy Van der Weide. 2025. "The Value of Landmine Awareness Programs in Conflict Settings: Evidence from Myanmar." AEA RCT Registry. November 28. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17047-2.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
This study evaluates a landmine awareness program implemented by Community Safety Partnerships (CSP), an organization
that helps coordinate the mine action activities of six international mine action organizations (MAG, Handicap
International, Danish Refugee Council, Danish Church Aid, Norwegian People’s Aid, and HALO Trust) as well as many
local mine action organizations in Myanmar. Because of intense civil conflict ongoing since 2021, Myanmar is now ranked among the most heavily landmine-contaminated countries in the world (UNICEF). The intervention includes risk education sessions combined with a "community safety mapping,” an innovative approach where communities discuss hazards in their vicinity and display maps highlighting unsafe areas and safe routes to essential resources like schools, farmland, and water. This intervention is designed to reduce landmine-related injuries while enabling safer access to economic opportunities, directly addressing the challenges faced by communities in mine-contaminated areas.
Intervention Start Date
2025-06-01
Intervention End Date
2025-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Exposure to the landmine awareness program, beliefs about landmine contamination in their area, beliefs about risks of travel around their area, Plans to stay at the current location, employment, Land area cultivated, Injury or death from landmines
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
How much time the respondent says it takes to reach the nearest branch/agent of a bank, MFI, an ATM or a mobile money agent
What challenges the household encounters while traveling to their place of work or business
What challenges the household might encounter while traveling to their place of work or business (self-reported)
Which programs the respondent says could immediately help the household find a new job or start their own business, Exposure to the landmine awareness program
Beliefs about landmine contamination and the risks of travel around their area.
Plans to stay at the current location and migrate or commute for work
Household income, including from wages, business profits, and farming profits
Household consumption
Psychological well-being
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We selected a sample of villages by combining MSNA and PMNT survey data. We restricted to the set of villages for which we had no records of prior EORE implementation and at least one record of landmine contamination in the area. Approximately 950 villages were randomized into a treatment and control group. Treatment is conducted at the village level through a group presentation by CSP. Within each village, we will systematically sample around 4--7 households for survey. The high number of villages relative to households in the sample reflects a moderate within-cluster correlation coefficient estimate from MSNA data. Treatment was assigned at the village tract (admin 4) level, stratifying by state, availability of MSNA data, and average village consumption.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Stratified randomization in Stata.
Randomization Unit
Village tract (admin 4)
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
About 950 villages
Sample size: planned number of observations
About 5,000 households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
About 475 villages in treatment and 475 in control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Rochester Research Subjects Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2025-07-23
IRB Approval Number
10416
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information